Philosophy Now Forum

Those who promote free will tend do point out the problem with personal responsibility and accountability. As if a problem means you have to ignore the argument and pretend it does not exist. It is much like Kant saying there ahs to be a God because I can't imagine a world without one. Well just because you don't like it does not strengthen the argument.
My view of Determinism does not present any kind of problem.
So let's assume that we are all determined. What role does punishment have, and what can we take from determinism to make the penal system better and more attuned to stop recidivism.
With the old system where the illusion of free will holds court, each individual is punished for what he does because it is assumed that he or she has the absolute god given choice to have done otherwise; that he knows that difference between right and wrong and his crime is a wilful neglect of his duty as a human being. This does not even have to assume that the criminal has ever had any access to moral teaching, education, an internal moral compass- none of that matters because his crime is an act of will and he is deserving of punishment. Free will does not even indicate any remedial treatment, as all that is empty if he can go out again a wilfully commit a crime. Prison is a means by which the criminal is protected from society. In this system the person is punished as the person he has chosen to be. Any suggestion that there were causal factors is not on the table.

If, on the other hand we accept determinism; that each person for each act is a culmination of a multitude of factors that lead inevitably to the commission of a crime - factors include genetics, environment , social position, poverty, wealth, culture, and so on.., what lesson can we learn to adjust punishment for the betterment of the individual and his role in society? I see not problem with promoting a penal system which recognises that an adjustment in attitude can be made; provision of a job skill to avoid the poverty that led the person to a crime; punishment to deter; and incarceration more as a punishment and less about keeping them off the streets. But whilst each one is there do something so that they will be a changed person. With determinism we are forced to consider the causes. We are forced to consider the causes of crime and the causes that might lead the person away from crime, rather than just let them rot.

We all know that prison is not working in any sense. Recidivism rates are on the increase and all we seem to do by incarcerating criminals is to make them better criminals. I think it is no coincidence that the Western country which is most Christian and holds onto the idea of a god given free-will has by far the most massive per capita prison population on earth, and the greatest death row in the Western world. Whilst the people rage for vengeance the prison population swells and crime seem to be on the increase.

Why not provide correction, rather than punishment. Why not change the person, rather than punish them? Educate rather than blame them for their ignorance?

Determinism rules okay!

why should the question of free will vs determinism enter into this at all

if you are going to hurt someone you d better have a good reason for it.

Hurting someone for no reason other than 'punishment" needs good justification which i have not seen so far.

so we should seek to make criminals harmless - which may mean imprisonment for some but for some we may be able to make them better peopel

Take a look at "Living Without Free Will' by parfitt